I like the uncertainty principle: “The more precise the prophecy, the elss precise the reality and vice versa”.
This is a clasical case of “trying to prevent the prophecy (by splitting GG into two) leads to the prophecy being fullfilled (BGG kicks him onto the blade). In this case we can all agree that the prophecy was not nearly precise enough.

I don’t understand why Good Girl would be conflicted
he’s a demon that intends to destroy the world and kill many innocents in the process. The blade was given to her by God for her to kill him. And by killing him she will save countless people that would have died otherwise, and the people she saved will give birth to more like their parents. By killing Evil it results entirely in Gross and Net Good.

Probably my favorite line from “The Dark Knight Returns”. Batman is speaking in an internal monologue, but the question is clearly addressed to the Joker: “How many more people am I going to murder by letting you live?”

As an afterward, I do think I read one story where Batman claimed if he killed someone, it would likely become far easier for him to do it to anyone (not just guys like the Joker), so he won’t take the risk.

And Batman? He needs this Gimp, and the excuse to avoid board meetings. He may say that he cares about future victims, but actions speak louder than words. Batman is a dysfunctional vigilante in a dysfunctional city. Does he spend money to improve the asylum that the Jokers in? Of course not. Does he spend money to improve the police department? Hell no.

So, spend money on the corrupt cops (Gotham not being known for it’s great cops).

Not only are they corrupt, they’re often retarded. Let’s look at the example of The Dark Knight movie. Cops blamed Batman for dead cops, when it was criminals killing the cops.

Also, again, if the cop really wanted Joker dead, one of them could have easily done it, but none of them do. Why hasn’t one of the asylum guards killed him? Why do people keep finding Joker legally insane, rather than just going “You know what, forget the insanity defense, he’s going to the chair.”

Just give his money to the poor? If he was democrat, I’d totally agree. It’s their ideal, but the rich ones never seem to do just that.

However, let’s see. Just give them free stuff. Then they want MORE free stuff. Give them money, food, shelter they didn’t work for, and they still steal because they want more or better.

He does give plenty of jobs though. How many of those are being filled? I work at a big company, I can tell you, we’re understaffed and part of that reason is because people come in, realize they’ll need to work and then leave :p

Batman stops the criminals, gives the DA and cops the evidence, usually even stops the criminals himself and what do the cops and city do? Fail.

“Idealist and other weak people”Not sure about the “weak” part, but few people have as much blood on their hands as idealists. Early communist idealists for example got almost as many people killed as their self serving non idealist successors.

Referring to idealists as weak people is a dangerous claim, as it implies they are less capable.

The old Iraq terror campaign America met with was primarily idealists, individuals who -truly- believed what they were doing was aiding their own kindred as much as possible and harming the one source of evil in the world as much as possible, while also granting themselves heaven.

ISIS is primarily a religious organization, which means they’re primarily working towards their own idealism. They’re doing so in horrifyingly brutal and violent manners, and anybody who claims they’re -good- is probably arguing a dangerous argument, but they’re idealists through and through, they believe they’re accomplishing a greater good with every action they perform and moving the world more towards their ideal.

South America was shaped by the idealism of Simon Bolivar, who, you can claim many things about him regarding being just short of the edge of competence to do what he wanted, being perceivable as corruptible, being perceivable as insane, but weak is definitely not one of those things, the man managed to free three separate colonial nations from three separate world powers in rapid succession and ALMOST managed to unite them into what would today be a second United States of America if he had just been a -little- smarter, or a -little- faster, or had -slightly- more dedicated followers.

Suleiman and Justinian both pushed for their countries, at all costs, to be as great as possible, and numerous other rulers have done the same, making the world more to their ideal, when they themselves often personally suffered for these actions. Where they could have rested on their laurels and actually feasted on a daily basis with little real penalties they’d ever experience.

The list of ‘strong idealists’ goes on and on, further and further back you go the list expands more and more. The one area where you can claim an idealist is traditionally weak is that they are unwise, they tend to push too hard for their personal ideal, or let themselves get pulled along in the dreams of another person without considerring that those dreams might not be to their personal benefit. But any claims of weakness for idealists are…dangerous. It fails to register that many examples of Idealists are also monomaniacal fanatics, the exact sort of entity where anything is possible.